JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Sticks and stones

Robbie Farah.

Robbie Farah.

Seriously ... we're letting a rugby league football player lead the discussion about online freedom of speech in this country?

When I first wrote that sentence, I thought maybe I was exaggerating - that the suggestion a vile tweet to NRL star Robbie Farah about his dead mother had actually caused a political reaction - was really quite silly.

Then I heard no-less than the Premier of NSW, Barry O'Farrell saying on ABC Radio : "I'm going to speak to the Police Commissioner about this specific incident.

"But there's a bigger issue here and that is how the states [can] work with the federal government, particularly the Communications Minister, to see what can be done," O'Farrell said.

NSW Police Minister Michael Gallacher then told a press conference in Sydney Monday morning that Twitter trolls should be arrested.

"Honestly, these clowns who hide behind their keyboards in their mothers' basements thinking that they can send offensive messages ... we've got to empower police with the ability to replace their keyboards with handcuffs."


On the weekend I wrote a column in which I questioned the absurdity of media types (MTs), paid for the privilege of transmitting their opinions to millions, wailing about a miniscule number of "nobodies" and "losers" getting a shot in with their own thoughts on Twitter.

It's intriguing how far my industry disappears up its own bottom at times, with journalists and MTs giving endless oxygen to issues that barely register with the people who consume our product.

A case in point is Twitter - a micro-blogging site used extensively by MTs to snarkily critique the world and self-promote but, when that self is attacked with metaphoric rotting fruit from the raucous groundlings, they get all offended.

Note the glee with which the media runs stories about "thin-skinned corporations" when a multinational's Facebook page is attacked and said company deletes offensive posts to "protect their brand".

Yet when journalists or MTs, who also market themselves as brands, are attacked in a similarly vile fashion, other journalists and MTs rush to sympathise, while the high-profile 'victim' deletes all traces of their often equally offensive involvement in the cyber kerfuffle.

More startling are the calls from these aggrieved elites that "trolls should be bought to account!" or "the laws must be changed!" to protect their featherbed sensibilities.

The very same champions who recoil from suggestions of state censorship and "gummint control of the meeja" seem to think there are two types of free speech: the polite, professional version they produce and the crude, brutal, inconvenient offerings of the general public.

Unfortunately, a couple of paragraphs were cut for space and one of them was this:

This is not to condone hate speech as identified by existing legal statutes - just the easily avoided, nasty crap people tend to say online when they disagree with you.

We have laws to deal with racial and religious vilification, libel, defamation, the revealing of state secrets, as well as advertising standards to reign in corporations ... so to say we have "free speech" in this country is something of a misnomer.

There are always limits to what you can say in a society, although, we do not presently have any law against tweeting nasty stuff about peoples' dead mothers, nor the hosts of reality TV shows.

This is not to say this will always be the case. Another paragraph removed from my weekend column made this point.

Our recent generations' enlargement of moral sympathy to include both genders, all races, most religions, the disabled, the poor - even animals and trees might be our defining virtue.

One hundred years ago you could pretty much say - not to mention do - what you wanted about women, homosexuals and people of other races and religions.

It's almost unthinkable now - which may well be the case in the future with comments the likes of which Robbie Farah has dealt with.

At the moment, though, it is not.

Sportsmen such as Farah often use Twitter to remove the "filter of the media", so fans can get their idols' undiluted thoughts and opinions.

They should therefore not be surprised when the odd turd blows back up the social media spout because they've removed this screen between themselves and the masses.

I think Farah is a great hooker and his performance in State of Origin II this year was almost superhuman (63 tackles, not one tackle missed).

From all accounts he's a good bloke as well, loved his mother and, yes, it's obscene that anyone would mock her.

However, it is currently not illegal to be an insensitive dickhead on Twitter and putting up with grubs like the one who baited Farah is an unfortunate consequence of all of us being able to voice our opinions in a democratic society.

And to insist that corporations like Twitter or Facebook adjudicate on what is "offensive" - outside of legal statutes - strikes me as ridiculous as asking Telstra to disconnect people because they say shitty things over the phone. 

For more than 2000 years, the right to freedom of speech has been a debate that occupied greater minds than Barry O'Farrell, Robbie Farah and Charlotte Dawson.

I'd encourage anyone who cares about this issue to read the likes of Plato, John Locke, Hobbes, Machiavelli, John Stuart Mill and Voltaire to have your opinion enlarged beyond "them trolls need to be stopped".

Noam Chomsky puts it this way: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like".

That includes ones that offend you as well.

Sam de Brito's latest novel Hello Darkness is in bookstores now. You can follow him on Twitter here. His email address is here.

371 comments so far

  • It pleases me beyond what I can reasonably express to see that there are some people in the mainstream media who understand how ridiculous this is. That we, an allegedly first world nation, do not have protected free speech is a travesty. Worse yet, people (some of them with political power!) think that punishing people who say things they don't like is ok, be it through physical violence (Farah's threat to the original poster) or imprisonment (like out fogbreathing cousins in England), absolutely disgusts me.

    If they silence and imprison someone who says something mean on Twitter, what's next? People who think that people should have the right to do with their own body what they please, including euthanasia? People who think abortion is ok? People who want a different political party?

    Martin Niemoller spoke of this not so long ago with his poem titled "First They Came…", and we're already forgetting the lesson that millions of people had to die for us to be taught in the first place.

    For shame.

    Date and time
    September 10, 2012, 7:20PM
    • Can anyone explain to me how one identifies a "troll" before they go online and do their troll things? How can we stop them when we don't even know who they are until they've committed their evil crimes? Sounds like the beginnings of a silly film with Tom Cruise?

      Date and time
      September 11, 2012, 2:16AM
    • So Farah threatened to assault the troll? Why hasn't he been charged?

      Date and time
      September 11, 2012, 4:53AM
    • It amazes me that people continue to defend online bullying as "freedom of speech". That people seem to believe telling a TV host she should go and kill herself should be afforded the same protections as airing an opinion on abortion is indeed a cause for shame.

      Surry Hills
      Date and time
      September 11, 2012, 6:24AM
    • @Harry - you're obviously a lawyer so tell us what offence you think Farah has committed.
      @Andrew - It is freedom of speech if it is isolated or rare. The best treatment is rebuttal and scorn. If the troll revels in that and becomes a repeat offender, then screening their IP address might work. I worry about too much restriction of freedom of speech.

      Date and time
      September 11, 2012, 8:11AM
    • There is a difference between freedom of speech and harassment. Verbal/written abuse has been proven to be more psychologically damaging than physical abuse.
      Has everyone forgotten that old chestnut that our Mums raised us on "If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all!"
      What concerns me is these people live in our society and are dangerous, this is pre-meditated abuse, they purposely go on their computers every day and look for people to abuse and I am sure they have their favourites they like to abuse too. Maybe you could say they are very similar to paedophiles!

      Date and time
      September 11, 2012, 9:09AM
    • Noam Chomsky puts it this way: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like".

      'That includes ones that offend you as well.'

      HERE HERE!

      I think if self promoting celebrities want to impose laws to 'stop the trolls', there should also be laws that prohibit them from profiting from any endorsement they give on social media.

      Cash for comment ring any bells!

      Social media really has bought out all of the Z grade celebrities who have no real talent and cling to Facebook and Twitter to self premote, as no one else will give them airtime!

      Dont put yourself out into the public area if you cant take the good with the bad!

      Date and time
      September 11, 2012, 9:45AM
    • I agree, its like we stand naked on kings cross and expect everyone to admire our wares and call the prime minister if anyone comments about the size!!! C'mon you chose to be close to public view and opinion by coming on twitter. If you can't handle it get off or better just 'block and report'. No need to make a fuss. There are bigger problems this country is facing then internet trolls.

      Date and time
      September 11, 2012, 9:56AM
    • aja, ***** comment, shame this website cannot vote up comments ala nyt

      Date and time
      September 11, 2012, 10:07AM
    • I'm sorry but I really dont believe in open slather "freedom of speech" because people hide behind it in the US as a way to legitimize disgusting and horrible beliefs and actions (ie writing horrible things to people, picketing funerals, taunting women with pictures of aborted fetuses etc).
      I am glad we are in the same vein as the Europeans on this one. People should be held accountable for what they say, and I think Sam is sending the wrong message that people subject to online bullying and harrassment should just toughen up. Saying it is a democracy and that twitter trolls are part of that is wrong because noone has the right to bully anyone, and thats exactly what happened to Charlotte Dawson and Robbie Farah. So if people want free speech to justify bullying and abuse, I want no part of that.

      Date and time
      September 11, 2012, 10:35AM

More comments

Make a comment

You are logged in as [Logout]

All information entered below may be published.

Error: Please enter your screen name.

Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Please enter your comment.

Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

Post to

You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

Thank you

Your comment has been submitted for approval.

Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

Featured advertisers
Executive Style newsletter signup

Executive Style newsletter signup The latest news delivered to your inbox twice-weekly.

Sign up now